New-found Democrat ethics interest denotes opportunism

Welcome aboard to ethics reform, Louisiana Democrats – it’s about time you joined the party after obstructing it all these years. For the past decade, a debate whose pro-reform side almost exclusively featured Republicans has obtained so much momentum on that side of the issue it seems on it Democrat legislative leaders now feel compelled to paint stripes on their figurative horses and call themselves zebras.

State Reps. Don Cazayoux (now running for Congress) and Eric LaFleur (in a few days to become a senator) asserted in fact they weren’t latecomers to the effort, giving as an example a (weak) 2005 special session bill to disclose hurricane contract work by elected officials and their relatives. Selective memories have they: the pair fought against strong provisions in bills on this subject both in committee and on the floor.

At least state Reps. Gary Smith and Michael Jackson are hat and cattle when they speak of ethics reform. During last year’s debate about Jackson’s HB 730 which attempted to do much of what incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal wants in regards to ethics reform, Smith spoke in favor of greater coverage of the bill. But when Smith claims “Democrats over the last few years led the charge on ethics reform,” he convenient forgets then that his now-ally on the issue Cazayoux spoke against what Smith had argued, and that it was (then-)Democrat senators Pres. Don Hines and Robert Adley who made parliamentary maneuvers to kill Jackson’s bill.

Even on a matter as simple as allocating tickets to events to legislators, who can forget it was Democrats like state Sen. Rob Marionneaux who in 2004 bleated about how it was being blown all out of proportion by the media, who then authored a resolution to confine them to the gallery in the Senate? And then the next year when Republicans put forward a bill to ban that (which Democrats are now supporting), Democrats (and some Republicans) scuttled it?

The fact of the matter is, all the way back to Reconstruction Democrats have enjoyed healthy majorities in the Legislature and controlled the governor’s mansion for all but 14 of those years. If they ever had been serious about ethics reform on the scale Jindal has proposed, they would have been passed it into law long ago. Among the majority in the party, there’s no genuine enthusiasm for it. Instead, recognize the statements of Cazayoux and most other Democrats reek of political opportunism as they see the relevancy of their party in the state policy-making policy slip away against the growing Republican/reform tide hurtling across Louisiana.

Landrieu unconvincing defending ethics lapse charges

Struggling on the policy front where she has been voting against the majority of Louisianans on a number of issues, the last thing Sen. Mary Landrieu needed to secure her reelection this fall was an apparent pattern of scandal. But the latest publicity surrounding an alleged earmark-for-contribution episode has made her appear to be a serial violator of campaign finance law, her defense of which makes her look even worse.

At is issue is a contract Landrieu foisted upon the District of Columbia school system to provide a specific kind of learning software onto its schools. Four days before formal approval of the $2 million, but after having met with Landrieu on the matter, at her office’s suggestion the company’s founder held a fundraiser among employees and friends that raised $30,000 for her 2002 reelection bid and more than $50,000 more would find its way to her from among his associates. Eventually, the company would receive over $8 million from the federal government for contracts nationwide including $700,000 for Louisiana.

On the surface, this looks like a trade which the nonpartisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims is illegal and wants legal investigations conducted on it. That’s bad enough, but Landrieu has made matters worse for herself by the way in which she has tried to explain it.

Landrieu’s office asserts that there couldn’t be any connection because the item in the appropriations bill that by her place on the relevant committee she was able to include was done months before the fundraiser. But that argument is entirely specious if corruption was in play: the idea was not to include it but to get it passed. Timeline: the item is stalled in the Senate, the company owner meets with Landrieu, her staff suggests a fundraiser, the fundraiser is held (which eventually would lead those affiliated with the company to donate enough for it to become one of the 20 highest sources of campaign funds for Landrieu in her two terms), and the bill with the earmark is passed out shortly thereafter.

It also tries to address the allegation by saying the software program ultimately proved helpful (which is somewhat disputed). But this logic is akin to the ends justifying the means: it’s as if Landrieu was saying, “So what if the deal was shady, it worked.” These “explanations,” if you can call them that, just beg more questions about her role and thought process.

Which is why the watchdog group is calling for an investigation which puts Landrieu in a no-win situation of her own making. Having it could exonerate her, but at the same time it would consistently remind voters during an election season that she may have ethical problems, if not actually having broken the law.

Further, having it or repeated calls for it would compound the fallout the campaign finance matter on which she ran afoul months ago regarding recently incarcerated Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu, who appeared to have steered illegal donations her way. Democrat Landrieu ignored the issue at first then finally issued denials that she knew of any illegal activities taking place and promised to divest the contributions. Adding to this festering was the appointment last year to her staff of Stephanie Leger who was investigated as part of the Jack Abramhoff lobbying scandal (Leger’s work history with the Abramhoff organization goes unnoted in her biography on the Landrieu senate web site).

Together, all of this adds up to create a plausible picture of a politician who plays fast and loose with the law. (And one who doesn’t even bring home the bacon despite all of that: Louisiana got less than 10 percent of the questioned earmarks.) That’s not the thing Landrieu wants to convey in a state ready to embark on major ethics reform when polls show she is well short of reelection, if not behind announced Republican challenger state Treasurer John Kennedy, yet she seems to be doing her best to do exactly that.

Election dynamics favor Carmody in special election

Of those that matter for the House District 6 special election next month, the field is probably set with former Shreveport city councilman Thomas Carmody and becoming-perennial candidate Barrow Peacock, both Republicans. Two other potentially viable candidates, current City Councilman Monty Walford and recent state attorney general candidate Royal Alexander appear to have opted out. Democrat Walford probably took a look at the heavily Republican district that doesn’t much overlap his present one and thought discretion was the better part of valor, while Republican Alexander probably concluded his recent expensive campaign was too much too quickly.

Another Democrat that could run is Caddo Parish School Board Member Charlotte Crawley. However, she would suffer from the same political problems as Walford and therefore has little chance of winning.

Carmody has been out of office a year and built up much goodwill among local Republicans for his service there as perhaps the leading fiscal conservative. (A few, however, might blame him for being the deciding vote in a 2002 redistricting plan that enabled Democrats to get a council majority, although others argue with the numbers going the way they were it was the best deal possible.) He won two impressive victories but his council district covers only about half of this state district.

Peacock ran for this seat in 2003 but was drubbed by resigning seat-holder Mike Powell. His 2007 Senate District 37 run encompassed most of the area, including the Bossier City portion, but again he failed to make the general election runoff. In addition, many Republican activists were distressed by his failure to publicly endorse eventual winner last fall state Sen.-elect B.L. “Buddy” Shaw over state Rep. Billy Montgomery who had switched to the GOP but whose voting record was much less conservative than had been Shaw’s when he had been a state House member from 1996-2004.

While Carmody has the advantages of electoral success, proven money-raising ability, and GOP goodwill, Peacock has the advantages of having run in the Bossier portion of the district twice, having run more recently (Carmody’s only serious-contested contest occurred in 1998), and can raise a lot of money very quickly. (Peacock’s campaigns have been enormously self-funded; in his latest bid – pending campaign finance reports due soon – he spent over $300,000 of which well over $200,000 was his own money which was probably more than any single legislative candidate in the state spent.)

But what gives Carmody the edge is that this special election, in tandem with presidential preference primaries, will disproportionately attract party activists. Especially after Peacock seemed to thumb his nose at the GOP with the failure to endorse Shaw and never having been much of a favorite of theirs anyway, Carmody will be their choice. Peacock can expect little enthusiasm from Democrats having spent much to craft a solidly conservative image of himself in last year’s campaign and if Crawley runs that is moot, so his best shot would be to pour his own resources into getting Bossier voters out. However, given the dynamics of this race, it’s not likely to be enough.

Blanco legacy attempt: silk purses out of sows' ears

With one week to go with the lamentable term of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, her comments about that tenure reveal that she doesn’t really need to pen a political autobiography to explain all. One aphorism describing her and one statement she made really sums it all up. They are, in order, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” and that she should have spent (state) money on a public relations campaign to change perceptions of her in the wake of the 2005 hurricane disasters.

The two link to explain why she was utterly the wrong choice to lead the state and did so poorly. In her heart, Blanco loves big government. She thinks its purpose is to do things, to correct problems real and imagined, the latter of which obviously don’t need government arrogation of power from the people in order to intervene into, and the former of which in most cases government does less efficiently and effectively than if individuals are left to their own devices to grapple.

This view of hers entirely misunderstands the human condition and human nature. Government should exist to enable individuals to pursue their own ends, interfering as little as possible with human lives because in the end down this path almost everybody in society is better off both in terms of autonomy and in accrual of resources. Simply, minimal government involvement to redistribute power and wealth for most people optimizes their individual abilities to accrue these on their own in an efficient way most beneficial to society as a whole, while for a small bunch of people they are no worse off than under alternative, increased levels of government intervention.

An excellent example concerns one issue Blanco wishes remembrance for and asserts she did good things with, economic development. She acted as if a big game hunter, trying to use the resources of government to bag hefty trophies. For the rest of her life, airlines, hotels, headwaiters, and the like will send her an avalanche of Christmas cards for all the business she brought them as she traipsed around on taxpayers’ money believing she could talk businesses, while dangling baubles such as special incentives in front of it, into coming to the state.

Meanwhile, existing business in the state was contracting for the very reasons Blanco was almost always unconvincing in her arguments to these presumed economic saviors who time and again refused to come to the state as non-government job growth stagnated: Louisiana has an unfriendly business climate because it taxes too much, regulates too much, educates inefficiently, and plays too fast and loose with governmental ethics. These problems were caused by too much and too much acquiescence to big government: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — no matter how much PR through government largesse you apply.

From Blanco we did not get meaningful tax cuts (just a small one for some businesses followed by a huge health care tax hike that she had to get repealed) and/or reductions in government spending (spending continued to increase even as population declined). Instead, we got Blanco blaming all sorts of imaginary forces and concepts – storms, FEMA, Bush, Republicans, Nagin, partisanship – for her lack of progress in economic development and in a host of other policy areas. Who she really needed to blame was herself for her flawed political ideology but since she had neither the intelligence nor wisdom to understand the theoretical bankruptcy of her liberalism, she had to find excuses instead.

Throughout her gubernatorial career Blanco has believed PR could solve her problems (within a day of Katrina-triggered floods she was communicating with staffers about what actions she should take to make herself look better). With her book plans, it appears that attitude will continue. If so, do not expect it to explicate the central insight that she should draw from her four years as the state’s chief executive – her worldview that promoted big government preordained her to failure, something that no amount of PR can change.

Baker departure would create more congressional chaos

From the sounds of it, the dean of Louisiana’s congressional delegation may not be in office much longer (you don’t volunteer that you may resign office early to take a new job without being serious about it, and even if you don’t come to terms with that position it sure sounds like you’re willing to field others). With the almost-certain departure of Rep. Richard Baker, more chaos infiltrates the Louisiana political scene.

With the resignation of Rep. Bobby Jindal to become governor, retirement of Rep. Jim McCrery, looming departure willing or otherwise of indicated Rep. William Jefferson, and sketchy reelection chances of Sen. Mary Landrieu, Baker’s departure would finish a wholesale revolution in national elective posts in the state. After the 2006 elections, the state’s delegation had about seven-eights of a century of service. By the beginning of 2009, it could be reduced by 75 percent. To put it into perspective, the new dean of the delegation, Rep. Rodney Alexander, at six years of service may constitute two-sevenths of the total amount of experience of the state’s congressional figures.

Such losses of seniority could reduce the amount of capital appropriations courtesy of the federal government coming to the state, and should become a campaign tool for Landrieu, in office for 11 years now. Expect her to remind voters that her defeat would cause the loss of seniority of the (at present, but maybe not given 2008 presidential contest dynamics) majority party for the state; whether that would prove convincing in any significant way is another matter.

As in the case of the 4th District of McCrery which has very similar demographics, the 6th favors a Republican although a certain Democrat candidate with good fortune could win the spot. In the Sixth, that person could be state Rep. Don Cazayoux who has a centrist voting record. But just like with the Fourth, any chance that Democrats might have to take the seat might go up in flames from intra-party strife – and it is more likely to happen here.

This is because the Sixth features a politician who has tasted a Congressional seat before, has run statewide well enough to get into a runoff for governor, and will be forced out of his state legislative office in about a week – state Sen. Cleo Fields. Having been in political office most of his adult life, Fields is itching to return to his biggest stage and would be at worst even money to win the Democrat nomination under the new closed primary system. The only thing holding him back is knowledge that the odds would be heavily against him in the general election regardless of the GOP opponent.

But you can’t win if you don’t play, and, even if he didn’t, Fields might want to show Baton Rouge-area Democrats he’s still the boss even if not in office by winning the nomination. Former Baker aide Paul Sawyer says he will run on the Republican side if the congressman leaves, but one can be sure others will take a stab on both sides of the aisle for a rare chance at an open seat.

Bossier citizens still paying for city's wasteful spending

Bossier City citizens got another unhappy reminder about their elected officials’ $21 million blunder when it was announced during last year's City Council budget hearings that water rates were likely to go up in the future as a result of deficit spending in that area. They now are welcomed into a new year of higher rates.

This echoes the increase forced on overburdened ratepayers two years in order to halt yearly dipping into the trust fund established to collect gaming revenues. In the present case, the Water and Sewer Fund had a healthy projected surplus of almost $1 million in 2006 which within a year apparently has gone into the red. Then as now, more prudent uses of surpluses in the fund could have avoided the need to hit up the citizenry. Instead of spending $21 million on a parking garage for the Louisiana Boardwalk that the developer could have built on its own, the million or more dollars a year from interest on this sum could easily meet water needs (many of which are infrastructural and would occur only occasionally).

Of course, every time news comes out that shows the poor quality of that decision, city officials and their media sycophants try to spin it to make it look half-decent, trumpeting impressive-sounding figures like the property making $21 million in sales taxes and $1.5 million in property taxes in its first 25 months of operations, $5.63 million in sales taxes specifically for Bossier City. But let’s cut through the spin and look at the comprehensive fiscal picture. For example, in the seven months it was open in 2005, the facility itself generated sales taxes of $1.57 million – more than the increase from 2004 through all of 2005 for the entirety of Bossier City sales tax collections, although in percentage terms the increase was not unusually high given historic figures. The same is true for the next couple of years (although the 2007 figures aren’t very reliable because the city’s predicted sales tax take will not be met).

Increasingly hard to argue LA not GOP-majority state

As I have noted previously, people who do demography by trade might be good at getting some numbers but then understanding their political importance is another matter that they often lack training to get completely right. Again, I offer my assistance in this regard to an analysis done of vote totals for the 2007 governor’s contest and legislative contests.

Reviewing these numbers, the analyst argued that because in many legislative districts the vote total of incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal did not exceed that of the winning legislative candidate, that these legislators are “less beholden” to Jindal. Such a contention suffers from both an analytical and theoretical problem.

Analytically speaking, relying on vote totals turns into an apples vs. oranges exercise because of the nature of the blanket primary. This allows primary elections to behave as general elections which created over a dozen gubernatorial candidates, fragmenting the vote. For these purposes, let’s argue practically speaking there were five in the governor’s race: Jindal, his three major competitors who got over 10 percent of the vote, and everybody else as a “field” or “none of the above” composite candidate.

By contrast, the typical legislative contest (where they were: 35 were not contested) had on average about three candidates. Assuming the analysis actually compares only the primary contests and not primary contests to the general election runoff (which makes no theoretical sense since there can’t be “coattails” for a lower-placed office if the higher-placed candidate is not on the ballot), Jindal will have two additional opponents so to speak on average than a legislative candidate, diluting his vote and making difficult to ascribe any substantive meaning to the comparison of winners’ totals.

Theoretically speaking, coattails as a political concept applies only under a pair of conditions, that there are strong party linkages in the political system and that candidates for both higher-placed and lower-placed offices act to acknowledge and factor them into campaigning. Neither condition held in last fall’s elections. Not only did Jindal disavow any attempt to appear as a partner or running mate to candidates (and wisely so, knowing he could not be assured of Republican majorities in both legislative chambers and did not wish to alienate those who won despite his having potentially supported candidates they beat, even as some of them tried to attach themselves to him), but the incredibly weak state and local party system in Louisiana would make any coattail effect slim to begin with. (National elections, however, are another matter since the national parties are so much stronger.)

So to state there are little in the way of coattail effects by Jindal’s election not only is to state the obvious – no need to crunch numbers on this because the concept simply does not apply in this electoral environment – but also is pointless. The real resources Jindal can use to corral legislative victories will come from his appeals to common promises (along the lines of the Blueprint Louisiana agenda, for example) and to the powers, more informal than formal, of his new office.

(As an aside, some have noted the minor drop in turnout from 2003 to 2007 for the governor’s race and wondered what that means for a Jindal “mandate” in the state. The answer is, nothing, because when factoring out displaced voters – who remained on voting rolls but were nowhere near their precincts on election day – turnout was almost identical between the two elections.)

The analysis also curiously argues that “the state is clearly leaning Republican. But it could go either way.” This assertion flies in the face of accumulated evidence over the past two decades, if not the past two years. From 1900 to 1964, no Republicans served in the Legislature (although a smattering of Populists and independents did). Twenty years ago, there were 17 in the House and five in the Senate. Both numbers have tripled since then, with the House alone up 14 members just from the 2003 elections. Further, two years ago no Republicans served in statewide executive office; now, five of seven do including the first Republican governor since Reconstruction who is a lifelong member of the GOP and defeated was the boss in practice of state Democrats, Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom.

By no means can this “go either way.” The trend clearly favors GOP and the best Democrats can hope for is that it slows rather than continuing its breakneck speed that (from the GOP perspective) at best already has created a Republican majority in statewide politics, at worst makes matters a toss-up. Perhaps this mistaken judgment comes from the wholly erroneous belief, asserted by the analyst, that Republicans made gains because Democrats did not campaign vigorously enough. In fact, the opposite was true: Republicans scored lesser gains because the party has come so far so fast that it could not find enough quality candidates in enough districts while Democrats deliberately fielded a more conservative lineup to try to stem the tide.

Data are useful to inform about the world of politics, but if used without proper conceptualization or not within the correct theoretical context, they don’t.

Powell departure adds uncertainty to state, U.S. races

Maybe we should have seen it coming when, in the aftermath of Rep. Jim McCrery’s announcement that he would not run for reelection, that buzz did not immediately form around state Rep. Mike Powell to run for the Republican nomination for that seat. Perhaps Powell himself cautioned supporters not to endorse him enthusiastically for the spot, as might be gathered by his unexpected resignation from the Louisiana House of Representatives.

Three reasons present themselves as to why Powell might do this in spite of his having as secure a seat as any in the House, after having just been reelected with no opposition this fall. One could be some lingering ethics problem, as some asserted rather unconvincingly with little proof months ago – to date, the state’s Ethics Board has not seen fit to see anything wrong with Powell’s activities. A second would be that Powell was preparing to run for the open federal seat, but that makes no sense since Powell would not have to give up his state seat to run for it. However, given a choice between time spent on legislative duties and campaigning for the U.S. position, Powell could go for the latter but it would not really solve the dilemma of making time for his family even if he could get a great full-time salary out of it – just ask McCrery who is opting not to run because it’s the family time that matters to him.

In the final analysis, it does all comes down to family with Powell. He has seven children with most hitting their teen years now or shortly, and it is a lot of mouths to feed and attention to be given. You don’t get paid as a full-time employee serving in the legislature (base salary is $1,400 a month) but, perhaps worse, you spend a lot of time in Baton Rouge and even at home on legislative business that also detracts from family life. As unfortunate as it might be that Powell is giving up public service, it’s to his credit that he puts first what really is important.

Giving up his current spot for family certainly also means he will not contend for the 4th District job, and makes that a much more wide-open contest. If Republicans cannot entice Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator to run, not only does it leave an uncertain Republican nominee, it strengthens the position of the only Democrat who has a shot at taking the seat, former Shreveport mayor Keith Hightower as the top two Republican candidates for it will be out. The national party likely is to involve itself more heavily in the process now to get the best possible candidate.

Locally, two names immediately leap to mind to replace Powell in a district that heavily favors Republicans. The favorite would be current Shreveport City Council member Michael Long, but he may be hesitant to run precisely for the same reasons of family that sidelined both McCrery and Powell from their respective offices. Another contender would be two-time election loser, against Powell in 2003 and for the state Senate seat incorporating the district months ago, Barrow Peacock. His problem is that he spent over $300,000 in his recent losing effort, a good chunk of it his own funds, and many Republicans were annoyed that he refused to support the eventual winner of the state Senate seat B.L. “Buddy” Shaw, a conservative Republican of long standing, against recent GOP convert liberal state Rep. Billy Montgomery. If Long doesn’t run and Peacock does, look for a concerted GOP effort to find another candidate.

Regardless of what happens now, it must be noted that Powell’s departure is a blow to those who value good legislative service, and he will be missed.

How much clearer, and bolder, can Jindal agenda be?

So, is anybody dense enough still not to understand what Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal said he was going to try to achieve as governor, after a recent interview? To summarize:

No tax increases, considering Louisiana’s budget has almost doubled in size in six years even as the state’s population has declined (backing out recovery expenses still indicates a 40 percent increase with an almost 10 percent population decline)

Ethics reform which will focus on stricter reporting requirements for both legislators and lobbyists, dramatic curtailment of legislators being able to get contracts from the state or work as “consultants” otherwise, and better funding to accomplish these things on top of existing laws

Economic development that begins with cutting business taxes and hopefully ends in reduction of income taxes for both businesses and individuals, and emphasizing work force training.

A great start, but one never should be afraid to climb those golden stairs which is argued by the editorialists at the Alexandria Town Talk, definitely the outlet with the surest grasp of superior public policy of any media in the entire state. It recommends taking all money that constitutionally must be used to pay items such as underfunded roads and accrued liability for state retirees, construction (presumably for state, not legislator needs i.e. no more reservoirs), and coastal restoration – and debt reduction can be added to the list, too.

With monies of a recurring nature, it suggests tax cuts, a wise choice that will stimulate the economy that will create higher revenues for the future and will solve the practical political problem of avoiding breaching the state’s spending ceiling (current surplus estimates would require two-thirds legislative majorities to spend past a certain level which could bog down any good spending plan). Better still, it advises then a planned reduction in the size of government of 10 percent, more than justified by the higher number of state employees proportionate to the population than most states.

Now, all together, this sounds like a real plan for prosperity.

Standardized tests make for honest success indicator

This summer, a Louisiana professor’s experience with whining students was part of a provocative, and welcome, piece in the Wall Street Journal about the culture of entitlement that has developed among youth. If not by every student and their parents in the state, it should be read at least by those in Bossier Parish.

The article noted that American-born college students’ attitudes about being graded served as a microcosm of an attitude that everybody was “special,” that they all were “entitled” to rewards such as good grades because they “worked hard.” By contrast, when Asian students did not earn A’s, they didn’t ask to get bumped up to a grade for which they had no merited, but instead asked how they could improve their performances.

With that in mind, I wouldn’t suspect that any of the complaining parents and students who confronted the Bossier Parish School Board this summer came from an Asian immigrant family – first, some who complained they should graduate high school because they passed their classes even though they failed the state’s required Graduate Exit Exam, then others, who had disqualified themselves from parish school’s honor programs because they had not scored at a sufficient level on the state’s iLEAP exam.

What gets the parents’ dander up is their children do well enough in the classroom, only to fail to measure up on the standardized exams. Then somehow it becomes the fault of the exam itself, or the state or parish’s policy of having the exam score inflexibly as part of the overall assessment of the child, rather than it being the simplest explanation of all – the child didn’t do what was sufficient to merit the reward.

In both the graduation and honors cases, there is a presumption that the children merit the rewards because they do well enough in the classroom. But the truth is that exams likely are far more reliable indicators of the child’s true learning than the grades.

An anecdote: my wife graduated from Parkway with a 4.0 GPA, tied for valedictorian with one of her best friends. Her other best friend, the salutatorian, was a couple of tenths of points behind, and the next student was another tenth or so behind her. Almost 20 years later, last year my nephew graduated from Airline. Almost 20 in his class had a 3.9 or better, and the average GPA was close to a 3.0.

Have students become so much more brilliant and/or their teachers so much better in the interim to achieve so much higher GPAs? I think not, if you look at the Airline 2004 and 2005 GEE scores (representing that class), in the top two categories, only 27, 32, 28, and 14 percent of Airline rising juniors and seniors scored in them for English, math, science, and social studies, respectively. The dirty secret of GPAs in high school is that they have become inflated, not just in Bossier Parish, but statewide (and far more wildly in some schools where students get ‘A’ grades for poor quality work) because many teachers are reluctant to give lower grades because, with TOPS awards for college hanging in the balance, they don’t want to deprive students of these and/or don’t want to put up with the hassle from above and below for giving more honest assessments. And it trickles down to lower grade levels as well.

Of course, there’s also the oldest fall-back excuse in the book that somebody “doesn’t test well.” Never mind that in the larger real work world tests of one kind or another are always being sprung on you so if you aren’t ready for them in school you won’t go far out of it, but in the smaller academic world my experience has been the students who make this claim, that aspect aside, almost always turn out to be fairly weak students.

Probably Bossier Parish schools could tweak their program a little bit, like allowing students to be in an honors track in one area but not another (as did the schools I attended growing up), but one of their officials hit the nail right on the head when she said if more children were allowed to take honors classes, then there would not be a lot of academic role models in the classroom for other students. You don’t give rewards only because of hard work; you distribute them when the goal is reached regardless of the amount of work. Reasonable standards are there not to deny deserving students, but to motivate all of them.

Which means the state should continue to prevent graduation of those who cannot pass the GEE and the district should continue to deny honors classes to those who do not excel on the iLEAP subject exams. Perhaps if there were less time complaining and more time studying there might not be any problem.